The Supreme Court dismissed a plea claiming Arundhati Roy’s book cover violated anti-tobacco laws, calling it a publicity-driven case. The Court held the image was not an advertisement and did not breach COTPA.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Friday refused to entertain a petition challenging the cover of Arundhati Roy’s latest book Mother Mary Comes to Me. The petition had claimed that the book cover, which shows the author holding a cigarette, violated Indian laws because it did not carry a statutory health warning.
The case, titled Rajasimhan v Union of India & Ors., had earlier been dismissed by the Kerala High Court on October 13, and the petitioner chose to approach the Supreme Court in appeal.
The petitioner, advocate Rajasimhan, argued that the photograph on the book cover amounted to a breach of Section 5 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA).
According to him, the image allegedly promoted smoking and could influence young and impressionable readers, particularly teenage girls and women, to believe that smoking is a symbol of creative or intellectual expression.
He clarified that he was not challenging the content or literary merit of the book, only the cover photo, which he said projected smoking as fashionable. His plea sought directions to stop the author and publisher from selling or circulating the book with the current cover.
However, the Supreme Court was not convinced. A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the book cover could not be treated as an advertisement for smoking and that COTPA did not apply in the way the petitioner had claimed.
The judges said that Arundhati Roy had not encouraged smoking in any manner and that only readers who bought the book would see the cover, so it did not amount to public promotion.
The Court clearly stated that
“Her literary work does not constitute any violation of Section 5 of the 2003 act. We see no reason to interfere with the High Court order. SLP dismissed.”
ALSO READ: Justice (Retired) S Murlidhar: Judges do make political choices
The Bench further questioned the motive behind the petition and remarked that it was nothing more than a publicity attempt. While dismissing the plea, the Supreme Court warned the petitioner and said,
“She is a renowned author. She has not promoted such a thing. There is a warming in the book and she is a prominent person as well. Why to do such a thing for publicity? There is no hoarding in the city with the picture of the book. It is for someone who will take the book and read it. Her picture with it does not portray any such a thing. Book, publisher or author has nothing to do with advertising for cigarettes etc. This is not an advertisement. You may disagree with the views of the author but that does not mean such a case can lie.”
Before the Kerala High Court too, Penguin Random House India, the publisher of the book, had argued that the petitioner was completely misreading the law.
They submitted that COTPA only restricts the advertisement of tobacco products and does not cover book covers or general depictions of smoking in literature.
They also pointed out that they had voluntarily added a disclaimer at the back of the book making it clear that the image was not meant to promote smoking in any form.
The Kerala High Court, while dismissing the PIL, strongly criticised the manner in which the petition was drafted. The Court noted that the only documents attached were the book cover image and a copy of COTPA.
It found that the petitioner, a practicing advocate, attempted to twist the language of the Act, withheld the fact that a disclaimer was already included on the back cover, and failed to approach the proper statutory authority—the Steering Committee—before filing the case.
The High Court stated that the plea appeared to be filed only for self-publicity and to cast unnecessary aspersions on Arundhati Roy’s character. As a result, it dismissed the petition.
Unhappy with the decision, Rajasimhan approached the Supreme Court, but the top court agreed fully with the High Court’s reasoning and dismissed the appeal, making it clear that the law had not been violated and that courts cannot be used for attention-seeking litigation.
Case Title:
Rajasimhan v Union of India & Ors.
Read More Reports On Book Cover
